Sanctuary Housing Association (202450398)

Decision
Case ID	202450398
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Sanctuary Housing Association
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	20 January 2026

Background

1. In February 2024, the resident reported that a sash window was broken, as it would not remain open. Over the following months, the resident continued to chase the landlord about the repairs due to extended delays in the window being fixed. The landlord completed repairs in August 2025, but they were not lasting. In October 2025, it decided to replace the window. The window has not yet been replaced.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Window repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found the landlord responsible for:
   1. Maladministration in its handling of the window repairs.
   2. No maladministration in its complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Window repairs

4. The landlord did not ensure that the window repairs were completed within reasonable timescales. This placed an ongoing responsibility on the resident to continue chasing the repair. There was a pattern of communication, record keeping, and repair service delivery failures. The repeated failures indicate a lack of learning by the landlord. The landlord acknowledged its failures during the complaints procedure and awarded some compensation. However, this did not fully put things right, as it did not account for the failures that continued beyond its final complaint response.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord’s complaint handling was in line with the expectations of its complaints policy and the Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which sets out our expectations around landlord complaint handling practices.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the window repairs. This includes the £350 it awarded during its complaints procedure, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 17 February 2026
	Completing the works The landlord must take all steps to ensure the work to replace the window is completed promptly and in any event by the due date. If the landlord cannot complete the works in this time, it must explain to us, by the due date: Why it cannot complete the works by the due date and provide evidence to support its reasons. It must provide a revised timescale of when it will finish the works; or Explain the steps it has taken to ensure the works were completed and provide supporting evidence. It must provide a revised timescale if it is able to or explain why it cannot. Whether suitable alternative accommodation is necessary and will be made available to the resident until the work is completed.	No later than 14 April 2026

 

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
20 July 2024	The resident complained about the length of time taken to repair the bedroom window.
2 August 2024	The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint because of the length of time taken to receive a quote and to start the works. It said it had requested that the repair be immediately escalated and would appoint an alternative contractor if necessary to complete it. It also said it would monitor the works and contact the resident to discuss the next steps. The landlord awarded £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused.
10 August 2024	The resident escalated his complaint because there had been no further progress to repair the window. He said the condition of the window was unsafe and unacceptable.
9 October 2024	The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that there had been further delays and communication failures. It said it expected to receive the contractor’s quote on the same day and would review it once received. It also said it would provide regular updates and monitor the works to ensure they proceeded as planned. The landlord increased its compensation to £350, consisting of: £200 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. £150 in recognition of the delay it anticipated would continue until December 2024, when it expected the works to be completed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident asked us to investigate the complaint as the window repairs remained incomplete.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	The landlord’s handling of window repairs
Finding	Maladministration

6. At the time of the resident reporting the broken window in February 2024, the landlord’s repairs policy said it would aim to complete non-emergency ‘appointed’ repairs within 28 days. By the time its external contractor inspected the broken window in May 2024 and said it would provide a quote for the identified works, this timescale had already been exceeded. Although the landlord chased the contractor for the quote on at least 3 occasions after the inspection, the contractor did not provide the quote until October 2024, which further contributed to the overall delays in repairing the window.
7. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered appointing another contractor when it encountered delays in receiving the quote. In August 2024, it raised this as an option if the contractor did not provide the quote after asking to escalate the matter. Despite this, the landlord did not take further action and continued to wait for the quote. There is no evidence to explain why it did not reassess whether to instruct an alternative contractor during this period. This falls short of our expectation of landlords maintaining a clear audit trail of their decision making through good record keeping. It also indicates a lack of proactiveness and consideration for the impact on the resident, who was likely frustrated by these delays.
8. There was also a further delay of more than 9 months before the landlord approved the quote after receiving it in October 2024. Its records do not clearly explain why this delay occurred. This suggests the landlord did not maintain adequate oversight and prioritisation of completing the repairs, despite saying during the complaints procedure that it would monitor this. The added delay may also have further reduced the resident’s trust in the landlord and likely added to his existing distress and inconvenience.
9. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will keep residents updated on repairs. Effective communication is essential for minimising distress and maintaining transparency, particularly when there are delays to repairs. However, its communication with the resident fell short of these expectations. It was, therefore, positive that it committed to providing more regular updates as part of its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. However, it failed to follow through on this, which demonstrates a lack of learning from its earlier communication shortcomings. This caused the resident distress, as evidenced by him reporting in February 2025 that he was becoming “increasingly concerned” and “disappointed” by the poor communication and limited repair progress.
10. The contractor completed the window repair in August 2025, more than 18 months after the resident reported that the window was broken. This was a significant amount of time for the issue to remain unresolved and was well beyond the landlord’s repair timescales. During this period, the resident raised multiple concerns, including about the safety of the window and that it meant the room could not be used as a nursery for his young child, which further shows the impact of the delays.
11. On 30 September 2025, the resident reported that the repair had not been effective. Landlords are not obliged to replace items if repairs can resolve the issue. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to try repairing, rather than replacing, the window to begin with. It was appropriate that once it became clear the repair had been ineffective, the landlord agreed to replace it in October 2025.
12. There were further delays after the landlord decided to replace the window. The inspection appointment was not scheduled until 7 January 2026. This was more than 3 months after the resident reported the ineffective repairs and over 2 months after the associated repair order was raised. The landlord’s records do not clearly explain the reasons for the additional delays, which prolonged the time the issue remained unresolved and the resident’s likely frustrations.
13. The contractor reported that they could not gain access for the appointment on 7 January 2026. We understand that there may be legitimate reasons why residents sometimes cannot allow access for appointments, but the landlord would not be responsible for the additional delays this caused. It is positive that the landlord ensured a rescheduled appointment was arranged for 19 January 2026 to inspect and quote for the window replacement. As the window has not yet been replaced, we have ordered that the landlord does this.
14. Our remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. It says that where failures have adversely affected the resident and the landlord’s attempt to put things right was not enough, compensation of up to £600 may be appropriate. The landlord’s award of £350 does not adequately recognise the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings in this case. Therefore, we have increased the compensation to £600, including the landlord’s earlier offer. Overall, the landlord missed the opportunity to fully put things right during its complaints procedure, resulting in a finding of maladministration.
15. In November 2025, the landlord told us that since issuing its final complaint response it has introduced changes to improve how it monitors repairs and maintains visibility of ongoing works. It also said it plans to implement wider improvements to enhance the resident experience. It is positive that the landlord has reflected on the outcome of this case and taken steps to improve its services.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	No maladministration

16. The landlord operates a 2‑stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy requires complaints at both stages to be acknowledged within 5 working days. It also requires a formal response within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. Under the Code, landlords may extend these timescales by up to a further 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2 if more time is needed to issue a complaint response. In this case, the landlord acknowledged and responded to the resident’s complaints at both stages within reasonable timescales and notified the resident when it needed additional time at stage 2 in line with the expectations of the Code. This resulted in a finding of no maladministration for this aspect of the complaint.

Learning

Communication

17. The landlord’s communication with the resident was often reactive and fell short of expectations around effective communication. It is positive that the landlord has acknowledged this. Our spotlight report on repairs and maintenance explains that proactive and tailored communication can reduce distress and minimise the impact of failures. The landlord may wish to review its communication with residents in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report if it has not done so already.

Repair oversight

18. The landlord did not maintain adequate oversight of the completion of the repairs as expected. It is therefore positive that the landlord has reflected on these failures and has taken steps to improve its oversight of outstanding repairs through system and procedural changes.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord’s records did not always contain the level of detail we would expect as part of good record‑keeping. This was particularly relating to its decision‑making about not further considering appointing a different contractor when there were delays in its appointed contractor providing a quote for the window repairs. And also, why there were further delays in it approving the quote once received. Our spotlight report on knowledge and information management highlights the importance of maintaining accurate and accessible records that provide a clear audit trail for transparency and accountability. The landlord may wish to review its record keeping practices in line with the recommendations set out in our spotlight report, unless it has done so already.